Call for a Review of New Legislation
This should be done automatically
There is a need to review the Access to Justice Act 1999 especially ex parte preliminary hearings, ex parte application hearings and skeleton arguments and CPR Rule 26 which is unjust law.
I recall at the implementation of the 1999 legislation that David Pannick QC wrote a sterling article in the Times against the proposal for "Skeleton Arguments" being used in court instead of the full text.
My court action, posted below shows that the court had my appeal document as part of the bundle. The first question put to the judge was "have you read the papers"? (Advice to trainees - always, always ask this as a first question - you will be surprised how many judges don't read the papers!!). My judge informed he had read the papers so we proceeded to the skeleton argument.
I read verbatim the case citation "London Borough of Redbridge v Fishman". I then read the whole "ratio decidendi" of that case. I then proceeded to do legal argument utilising the "ultra vires doctrine" and then I gave points of evidence.
None of the above is contained in the Judgment.
The conclusion is that the Judge is actually "perverting the course of justice and that it is certain. The secondary consideration is that the judge has intentionally mislead the public, because a decision is public domain and by not resolving the case in my favour has knowingly defamed my good character. The issue is "intentionally" mislead, because he had to have a reason for so doing and as the action was Lesley McDade v Masons it is perceived to be for a masonic reason.
Interestingly, Respondents in-house solicitor also attended an EX PARTE preliminary hearing!!
So, the Commission have an issue to investigate - but pray do tell who a person reports to for an investigation to occur. I have informed the Police who suggested I appeal the case eventually informing it was an issue for the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Lord Chancellor's Department informed it was the Police. The IPCC investigated the Police Officers to no avail. The Bar Complaints investigated the barristers to no avail. The Office of the Supervision of Solicitors investigated 3 of 26 solicitors referred to no avail. And the Ombudsman investigated the Bar Complaints and Office of Supervision of Solicitors to no avail.
In other words: the entire bloody system failed.
Why?
Surely not because you think a Professor of Law and Philosophy is more intelligent than a legal secretary!
(I have to admit, I am probably the exception rather than the norm - but you never know as my idiot of a Professor is openly referred to as a "Guru" - look it up in the dictionary)
The idiot holds public office as the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. As he holds public office, he can be processed for misconduct in public office which is a criminal offence which carries a life sentence - am working on it at the moment! Might have been better to have settled out of court and I can't think of a reason why you didn't, given Anne Molyneux, solicitor, told the T-lady, Diane, there was "blood all over the walls" after my disciplinary hearing and she brought the allegations.
There is a need to review the Access to Justice Act 1999 especially ex parte preliminary hearings, ex parte application hearings and skeleton arguments and CPR Rule 26 which is unjust law.
I recall at the implementation of the 1999 legislation that David Pannick QC wrote a sterling article in the Times against the proposal for "Skeleton Arguments" being used in court instead of the full text.
My court action, posted below shows that the court had my appeal document as part of the bundle. The first question put to the judge was "have you read the papers"? (Advice to trainees - always, always ask this as a first question - you will be surprised how many judges don't read the papers!!). My judge informed he had read the papers so we proceeded to the skeleton argument.
I read verbatim the case citation "London Borough of Redbridge v Fishman". I then read the whole "ratio decidendi" of that case. I then proceeded to do legal argument utilising the "ultra vires doctrine" and then I gave points of evidence.
None of the above is contained in the Judgment.
The conclusion is that the Judge is actually "perverting the course of justice and that it is certain. The secondary consideration is that the judge has intentionally mislead the public, because a decision is public domain and by not resolving the case in my favour has knowingly defamed my good character. The issue is "intentionally" mislead, because he had to have a reason for so doing and as the action was Lesley McDade v Masons it is perceived to be for a masonic reason.
Interestingly, Respondents in-house solicitor also attended an EX PARTE preliminary hearing!!
So, the Commission have an issue to investigate - but pray do tell who a person reports to for an investigation to occur. I have informed the Police who suggested I appeal the case eventually informing it was an issue for the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Lord Chancellor's Department informed it was the Police. The IPCC investigated the Police Officers to no avail. The Bar Complaints investigated the barristers to no avail. The Office of the Supervision of Solicitors investigated 3 of 26 solicitors referred to no avail. And the Ombudsman investigated the Bar Complaints and Office of Supervision of Solicitors to no avail.
In other words: the entire bloody system failed.
Why?
Surely not because you think a Professor of Law and Philosophy is more intelligent than a legal secretary!
(I have to admit, I am probably the exception rather than the norm - but you never know as my idiot of a Professor is openly referred to as a "Guru" - look it up in the dictionary)
The idiot holds public office as the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice. As he holds public office, he can be processed for misconduct in public office which is a criminal offence which carries a life sentence - am working on it at the moment! Might have been better to have settled out of court and I can't think of a reason why you didn't, given Anne Molyneux, solicitor, told the T-lady, Diane, there was "blood all over the walls" after my disciplinary hearing and she brought the allegations.
posted by Lesley McDade at 7:53 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home